Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

On 7/23/2025 3:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.jul.2025 om 15:50 schreef olcott:

On 7/22/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-21 13:45:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 7/20/25 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:

Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof
>
Author: PL Olcott
>
Abstract:
This paper presents a formal critique of the standard proof of the
undecidability of the Halting Problem. While we do not dispute the
conclusion that the Halting Problem is undecidable, we argue that the
conventional proof fails to establish this conclusion due to a
fundamental misapplication of Turing machine semantics. Specifically,
we show that the contradiction used in the proof arises from conflating
the behavior of encoded simulations with direct execution, and from
making assumptions about a decider's domain that do not hold under a
rigorous model of computation.
>

Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using.

>
This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.

>
It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.

>
It is also honest and truthful that people
that deny verified facts are either liars
or lack sufficient technical competence.

>
Where I live it is a crime to call anyone a liar or lacinkg sufficient
technical compoetence unless a judge accepts your proof of your claims.
>

>
I have proven that my claims are self-evidently
true on the basis of the meaning of their words
and the meaning of the code samples that I have
provided.

 As usual incorrect claims without evidence.
 

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
When anyone says that DDD correctly simulated by
HHH reaches its own "return" statement final halt
state if we just wait long enough this is either
a lie or a lack of sufficient technical competence.

 Nobody said such a thing. Suggesting that somebody did, without any evidence, may be considered as a lie.
We all know that HHH fails to reach the final halt state,

Counter-factual.
The directly executed HHH does reach its final halt state.
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
final halt state no matter what HHH does because it remains
stuck in recursive simulation.

where world class simulators have no problem to reach the final halt state of exactly the same input.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer